Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:22:28 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: fsync on large files |
| |
On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > Matthias Urlichs writes: > > Edgar Toernig <froese@gmx.de> writes: > >> > >> If you allow directory hardlinks (or loopback mounts) you get > >> a completely different structure: a directed graph with all > >> it's problems (like rings). > > Traditional UNIX allows this and many other things. > (I'd love read() access on directories) > > > Loopback mounts are comparatively easy because, while some things > > appear in different places, they're on a different file system, > > so there's no danger of accidentally crating cycles. > > > > The idea of hardlinked directories is fun to think about, > > but it's hairy. _Very_ hairy. My opinion: Don't Go There. > > So we add an online garbage cleaner to kill disconnected loops. > Not pretty, but it works. The cleaner can get other jobs too, > like defragmentation and directory compaction. > > Any other problems?
<flame> Just one: getting your sorry ass to *write* the things you are proposing. </flame>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |